The court held that money demanded by a public servant was towards property tax arrears and not illegal gratification. Admissions by key witnesses justified refusal to interfere with the acquittal.
The High Court flagged the practice of issuing orders without disclosing the actual officer who passed them. It held that accountability requires clear mention of the decision-making authority in every Customs order.
The issue was whether a writ petition could bypass the statutory appeal after a final assessment order. The Supreme Court upheld dismissal of the writ, holding that availability of an appellate remedy bars writ jurisdiction, while granting time to file appeal.
The Court held that reassessment notices failed because seized documents did not relate to the relevant assessment years. Jurisdiction under Section 153C was therefore not validly assumed.
The Court refused to entertain a writ against an assessment order where an appeal remedy was available. Bypassing statutory remedies was held impermissible.
The ruling held that expenses paid to overseas patent attorneys are taxable as import of legal services. GST must be discharged by the Indian recipient under reverse charge, even if the invoice describes the amount as reimbursement.
Issue: No correction made despite ample opportunity. Ruling: Penalty confirmed. Takeaway: Timely rectification is critical to claim bona fide mistake.
The Court ruled that a 67-day delay in filing GST appeal deserved condonation as the taxpayer was pursuing statutory remedies. The appellate authority was directed to hear the appeal on merits.
The High Court ruled that the appellate authority has power to condone delay under Section 107(4) of the GST Act. The key takeaway is that GST appeal timelines are not mandatory and require consideration on merits.
The Tribunal held that when sales are accepted and purchases are unverifiable, only the embedded profit can be taxed. Full disallowance of purchases was found unsustainable.
